My Parents want me to Apply Early at an Ivy

[Data10]

<p>

In fact, based upon my observations and conversations with several dozens of friends and classmates, those students who applied SCEA and matriculated exhibited similar, if not higher, GPA/SAT scores as those who matriculated from the RD round.

It’s common knowledge that the early decision group is academically stronger than the RD round at selective colleges, including higher average GPA + scores. This was explained in the study and in posts within this thread. This relates to why the acceptance rate is so much higher among SCEA apps than RD apps. For example, the 2016 acceptance rates for SCEA and RD at some colleges with similar selectivity to Princeton are below:</p>

<p>Princeton: SCEA 21.1% acceptance rate, RD 5.9% – SCEA rate is 3.6x RD rate
Yale: SCEA 15.7% acceptance rate, RD 5.3% – SCEA rate is 3.0x RD rate
**Stanford: **SCEA 12.8% acceptance rate, RD 5.4% – SCEA rate is 2.4x RD rate</p>

<p>Note that the increase in acceptance rate for SCEA varies from 140% higher at Stanford to 260% at Princeton. Most of the increase is obviously due to differences in academic strength and rate of hooks between the two admissions pools. The point of the study was to compare admit rates after discounting the differences in GPA/SAT strength + legacies + various other factors. The study found that the vast majority of this ~3x greater acceptance rate was due to difference in academic strength and rate of hooks, but beyond these factors and others, there was still a notable preference to early apps on the order of 50% instead of 200+ %. Obviously just thinking about which group of your friends seems academically stronger is not going to discount differences in academic/applicant strength, which was the main point.</p>

<p>

I have still seen no single shred of evidence suggesting that there is a minimum level of GPA/SAT required to get into Princeton

Nobody said there was a minimum GPA/SAT to get into Princeton. Instead as has been stated in this thread, the chance of acceptance decreases substantially as both GPA and SAT decrease, as can be seen in the Princeton class of 2016 stats at [Admission</a> Statistics<em>|</em>Princeton University](<a href=“http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/]Admission”>http://www.princeton.edu/admission/applyingforadmission/admission_statistics/) . For example, the 2300+ SAT group had 19% admit rate, while the ~1800 group had a 2% admit rate. If you removed hooks & URMs, the rate of decrease at the low end would be even more dramatic.</p>

<p>

I question the validity of data taken from over a decade ago, NO MATTER when the study itself was published.

You are entitled to your opinion, which is not obviously not shared by the Stanford and Harvard professors who published the study recently using older data. Sure it’s possible that colleges have suddenly started admitting using totally new criteria, such as your earlier example suggesting that Princeton might have stopped considering ECs and instead be looking for intellectuals. However, talks with some of your friends suggesting the well known difference in applicant strength between the two admissions pools exists is not sufficient to show the study is incorrect. In contrast the study also found a difference in app strength in the two admissions pools.</p>

<p>

Additionally, none of the other articles that cite the one you mention have anything to do with early action and advantages - they are mainly concerned with economics and the market.

There are several. One is at [Early</a> decision and college performance](<a href=“http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775710000051]Early”>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272775710000051) .</p>